APIs · head to head
Akoya vs Lithic
Akoya
APIs
Bank-owned, token-based open finance network that replaces screen scraping for US financial data
- From
- On request
- Rated
- -
Lithic
APIs
API-first card issuing platform with direct Visa, Mastercard and Amex network connections
- From
- On request
- Rated
- -
The short version
- Each has a real cost: Akoya coverage reaches several thousand institutions but does not match aggregators that can still scrape, so applications needing the long tail of small credit unions will run a second data provider alongside it.; Lithic pricing is entirely undisclosed, so a company cannot compare total cost against Marqeta, Galileo or Highnote without a sales conversation.
- They diverge on capability: Akoya covers FDX standard APIs, Lithic covers Direct network connections.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Akoya and Lithic actually diverge.
Identical on both: starting price (On request), pricing model (quote), free tier (No), user rating (Not yet rated), category (APIs).
What each one covers
Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.
Only in Akoya
- FDX standard APIs
- Token-based access
- Investment data
- Accounts, balances and transactions
- Statements and tax forms
- Customer identity
- Consumer permission management
- Single integration
Only in Lithic
- Direct network connections
- Processor Client mode
- Lithic Program Management
- Card lifecycle APIs
- Sandbox environment
- Real-time authorization controls
What people use each for
The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.
Akoya
- A wealth management platform that needs Fidelity brokerage holdings and tax lots, which cannot be scraped since Fidelity closed that route in October 2023not Lithic
- A tax preparation product retrieving tax forms and cost basis directly from the institution rather than asking users to upload PDFsnot Lithic
- A lender that needs a permissioning trail defensible under CFPB section 1033 rather than a credential-sharing arrangementnot Lithic
- A bank that wants to meet data sharing obligations through one network connection instead of building and policing its own developer interfacenot Lithic
Lithic
- A fintech wanting direct Visa or Mastercard network access rather than routing through a third-party processornot Akoya
- A company that already holds its own issuing licence and wants API access without full programme managementnot Akoya
- A neobank or expense platform wanting Lithic to manage bank and network relationships end to endnot Akoya
- A product team prototyping a card programme in sandbox before committing to a launchnot Akoya
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
Akoya
- Coverage reaches several thousand institutions but does not match aggregators that can still scrape, so applications needing the long tail of small credit unions will run a second data provider alongside it.
- The network is owned by large banks, so roadmap and coverage priorities reflect owner interests rather than those of the fintechs consuming the data, and a recipient has no leverage over which institutions are added next.
- Data availability is decided institution by institution, meaning a bank may expose balances but not transactions or investments, and recipients must verify field-level coverage per institution rather than assume the FDX model is fully populated.
- Pricing is unpublished and usage based, which makes it difficult to compare against aggregator pricing during a build-versus-buy decision and forces a sales cycle before you can model cost.
- The token model requires the institution to have implemented its side, so newly onboarded institutions arrive on the institution timetable, not yours, and a launch dependent on a specific bank can slip badly.
Lithic
- Pricing is entirely undisclosed, so a company cannot compare total cost against Marqeta, Galileo or Highnote without a sales conversation.
- Choosing Processor Client mode still leaves the company responsible for holding its own issuing licence and managing the regulatory relationship, which is a substantial undertaking many teams underestimate.
- As with any card infrastructure provider, an outage or network issue at Lithic becomes a direct outage for every card programme built on it, and a customer has limited visibility into root cause during an incident.
- Building a card programme on API infrastructure requires real engineering investment; it is not a plug-and-play product for a non-technical team.
- Switching card infrastructure providers after launch is a major undertaking involving card reissuance and programme migration, so the initial choice carries lasting lock-in.
Pricing, plan by plan
Akoya
On request- Akoya Data Access$undefined/year
- Usage-based pricing quoted by data product and call volume
- Separate commercial terms for data recipients and for financial institutions joining the network
- No published rate card
Lithic
On request- Lithic$undefined/year
- Volume and interchange-based pricing, not published
- Separate Processor Client and Program Management pricing tracks
- Custom quote required via sales
Which should you pick?
Choose Lithic if
- You need direct network connections.
- You work on Web, API.
- You also want processor client mode.
Questions people ask
- Is Akoya or Lithic better?
- Neither clearly leads. Akoya starts at On request and Lithic at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, Akoya or Lithic?
- Akoya starts at On request and Lithic at On request.
- Does Akoya or Lithic run on more platforms?
- Akoya runs on Web. Lithic runs on Web, API.
- What is Akoya best used for?
- Akoya is most often used for a wealth management platform that needs fidelity brokerage holdings and tax lots, which cannot be scraped since fidelity closed that route in october 2023, a tax preparation product retrieving tax forms and cost basis directly from the institution rather than asking users to upload pdfs, a lender that needs a permissioning trail defensible under cfpb section 1033 rather than a credential-sharing arrangement, a bank that wants to meet data sharing obligations through one network connection instead of building and policing its own developer interface. Of those, a wealth management platform that needs fidelity brokerage holdings and tax lots, which cannot be scraped since fidelity closed that route in october 2023 and a tax preparation product retrieving tax forms and cost basis directly from the institution rather than asking users to upload pdfs are not what Lithic is typically brought in for.
- What can Akoya do that Lithic cannot?
- Akoya covers FDX standard APIs, Token-based access, Investment data, Accounts, balances and transactions. Lithic covers Direct network connections, Processor Client mode, Lithic Program Management, Card lifecycle APIs.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
Akoya: Who owns Akoya?
A group of large US banks. It was spun out of Fidelity, which is why Fidelity data access runs through it.
Lithic: Does Lithic publish pricing?
No, pricing is volume-based and requires a sales conversation.
Akoya: Is Akoya screen scraping?
No. It uses FDX standard APIs with OpenID Connect tokens, so credentials are never shared with or stored by the data recipient.
Lithic: What is the difference between Processor Client and Program Management?
Processor Client suits companies with their own issuing licence and bank relationships; Program Management is for companies wanting Lithic to coordinate those relationships on their behalf.
Akoya: Can we use Akoya alone instead of an aggregator?
Usually not. Its investment and large-institution coverage is excellent, but the long tail of smaller institutions is thinner, so most teams run both.
Lithic: Which networks does it connect to?
Visa, Mastercard and American Express directly.
Akoya: Does it help with CFPB section 1033?
It is designed around it, providing tokenised permissioned access and consumer revocation rather than credential sharing.
Related pages
Other head to heads
- Akoya vs Yodlee
- Akoya vs MX Technologies
- Akoya vs Ozone API
- Akoya vs Aiia
- Akoya vs Tink
- Akoya vs Salt Edge
- Akoya vs Trustly
- Akoya vs Token.io
- Akoya vs Bud Financial
- Akoya vs Tribe Payments
- Akoya vs Method Financial
- Akoya vs Asyncapi
- Akoya vs AWS API Gateway
- Akoya vs Microsoft Azure API Management
- Akoya vs Basis Theory
- Akoya vs Boomi API Management
- Akoya vs Codat
- Akoya vs Thredd
- Akoya vs Unit
- Akoya vs Highnote
- Akoya vs Vodeno
- Akoya vs Swan
- Akoya vs Treasury Prime
- Akoya vs Marqeta
- Akoya vs Synctera
- Akoya vs Weavr
- Akoya vs Increase
- Akoya vs i2c
- Akoya vs Brite Payments
- Akoya vs Bruno
- Akoya vs Episode Six
- Akoya vs Kong Gateway
- Lithic vs Yodlee
- Lithic vs MX Technologies
- Lithic vs Ozone API
- Lithic vs Aiia
- Lithic vs Tink
- Lithic vs Salt Edge
- Lithic vs Trustly
- Lithic vs Token.io
- Lithic vs Bud Financial
- Lithic vs Tribe Payments
- Lithic vs Method Financial
- Lithic vs Asyncapi
- Lithic vs AWS API Gateway
- Lithic vs Microsoft Azure API Management
- Lithic vs Basis Theory
- Lithic vs Boomi API Management
- Lithic vs Codat
- Lithic vs Thredd
- Lithic vs Unit
- Lithic vs Highnote
- Lithic vs Vodeno
- Lithic vs Swan
- Lithic vs Treasury Prime
- Lithic vs Marqeta
- Lithic vs Synctera
- Lithic vs Weavr
- Lithic vs Increase
- Lithic vs i2c
- Lithic vs Brite Payments
- Lithic vs Bruno
- Lithic vs Episode Six
- Lithic vs Kong Gateway